Evaluation of the Alcohol Craving Questionnaire-Now factor structures: Application of a cue reactivity paradigm

Abstract

The current study compared the psychometric properties and clinical/research utility of four distinct factor/subscale models of alcohol craving (three factor-derived models, and one rationally-derived model) as measured by the Alcohol Craving Questionnaire-Now in social (n = 52) and alcohol dependent (n = 71) drinkers. All participants completed a self-report measure of alcohol abuse in addition to engaging in a structured interview and cue reactivity protocol. Participants provided selfreported craving, as well as desire to approach or avoid drinking, during a cue exposure task using separate analogue scales. Factor/subscale models were compared in terms of internal consistency, convergent and divergent validity, and ability to predict cue-elicited approach and craving in addition to diagnostic status. All models demonstrated high levels of internal consistency, convergent and divergent validity, and the ability to predict both cue-elicited craving and alcohol dependence status. Specific strengths and weaknesses of each model are examined and the theoretical, clinical, and research utility of the current findings are discussed.

Pre-treatment predictors of dropout from prolonged exposure therapy in patients with chronic posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid substance use disorders

“…The ACQ–Now has strong psychometric properties (Connolly, Coffey, Baschnagel, Drobes, & Saladin, 2009). The ACQ-Now demonstrated excellent internal consistency ( α = .97) in the current study.…”

Psychometric evaluation of a standardized set of alcohol cue photographs to assess craving

“…First, it is possible that the alcohol craving ratings did not capture the multidimensional model of alcohol craving proposed to be ideal in cue reactivity studies (Connolly, Coffey, Baschnagel, Drobes, & Saladin, 2009;Schulze & Jones, 2000). Secondly, while alcohol cue craving ratings across age and gender were consistent with alcohol use trends, the ethnic differences are not clearly supported by previous literature (Ham & Hope, 2003).…”

Effects of Alcohol Availability, Access to Alcohol, and Naltrexone on Self-Reported Craving and Patterns of Drinking in Response to an Alcohol-Cue Availability Procedure

“…Although it is possible that the manipulations of perceived availability and restricted access to alcohol affect drinking behaviors but not craving, this negative fi nding may also refl ect a limitation of this craving measure. Although this measure was sensitive to the effects of naltrexone treatment, recent studies provide evidence that craving comprises multiple factors, and truncated measures are assessing only part of the construct (Connolly et al, 2009;Kramer et al, 2010). Future research efforts may benefi t from the administration of more comprehensive, yet brief assessments of craving (e.g., the eight-item Alcohol Urge Questionnaire; Bohn et al, 1995).…”

“…Third, differences in craving assessment (single-vs. multiple-item scales; self-report vs. behavioral measures) may affect outcomes. Although some studies rely on a single-item self-report indicator of craving, multiple-item (Connolly et al, 2009) and behavioral (Sayette et al, 2000) measures should be used whenever possible. Fourth, differences in stimulus cues, availability of alcohol, and restriction of access to alcohol across studies may each have signifi cant effects on cravings.…”

“…The primarily subjective experience of craving has also led to wide discrepancies in the conceptualization, modeling, and assessment of this construct (Connolly et al, 2009;Lowman et al, 2000;Pavlick et al, 2009;Shiffman, 2000;Sinha, 2009). It has been suggested that assessment of craving should extend beyond self-report measures to include behavioral indicators of drinking motivation (Rosenberg, 2009).…”